Dyson Appliances Ltd v Hoover Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE ALDOUS,LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY,LORD JUSTICE ARDEN |
| Judgment Date | 04 October 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] EWCA Civ 1440 |
| Docket Number | Case No: A3/2000/3459 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 04 October 2001 |
[2001] EWCA Civ 1440
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM CHANCERY DIVISION
MR R.M. FYSH Q.C.
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Aldous
Lord Justice Sedley and
Lady Justice Arden
Case No: A3/2000/3459
Geoffrey Hobbs QC, Mark Vanhegan and Philip Roberts (instructed by Arnander Irvine and Zeitman for the Appellants)
David Kitchin QC and Guy Burkill (instructed by Olswang for the Respondent)
This is an appeal against the order made by Mr R.M. Fysh QC sitting as a deputy judge of the Chancery Division on 13th October 2000. In his judgment, the judge held Patent No. 0042723 of the claimants, Dyson Limited, valid and infringed. Hoover Limited, the appellants, challenge that finding and seek an order revoking the patent and other relief.
The Patent
The patent claims priority from four applications, the last of which was applied for on 26th September 1980. It is for an invention entitled "Vacuum Cleaning Appliance".
The specification starts by setting out the background to the invention. It goes on to describe, by way of an example, an embodiment using three drawings. Sufficient understanding of those drawings can be obtained from figures 1 and 2 which are in this form:
Those figures are said to illustrate a domestic cleaning apparatus. The cleaning head (2) has a motor driven fan unit (3) and brush (4). The fan is such that dirt laden air from behind the brush is driven through port (10) into a passage defined by sleeve (12) and the casing. From there the dirt-laden air passes into a first cyclone defined by the cylindrical casing (13). That cyclone is said to be of low efficiency, but it provides cyclonic swirling movement as shown by the arrows in the figures. The result of that movement is that the majority of the dirt is deposited on the support plate (17). The air which still contains dirt passes from the low efficiency cyclone up the pipe (19) into the high efficiency cyclone defined by the frusto-conical member (15). There the cyclonic cleaning process is completed so that the remaining dirt particles drop down the cylindrical portion (16) to the support plate (17). The clean air passes out of the top of the high efficiency cyclone and is then vented from the appliance through a passage (21).
The specification opens by describing in these terms the type of appliance which is the subject of the invention:
"This invention relates to a vacuum suction cleaning appliance and in particular to an appliance of the kind described in the published EPC Specification no. 0018197, being prior art as defined in Art. 54(3) EPC."
EPC specification no. 0018197 is another Dyson patent, conveniently referred to as Dyson I. Its disclosure is described in the specification at column 1 line 8 in these terms:
"EPC specification no. 0018197 describes an appliance in which a cleaner head for contacting a dirty surface is connected to the interior of the casing in which an air flow is set up by a motor-driven fan. The casing contains two cyclone units in series operating successively to extract dirt particles (dust and other extraneous matter) from the air flow there through and to deposit the extracted dirt.
A cleaning appliance based on cyclone units has the advantage that dust bags are not required as dirt can be discharged from the appliance by removing and separating the cyclones from the surrounding casing. Other advantages are that the air discharged from the appliance is substantially dust-free and the use of filters as main cleaning elements is avoided.
In the appliance described in the said EPC patent application each of the two cyclone units has a body of substantially frusto-conical shape tapering away from the cyclone air inlet, this shape serving to maintain the velocity of the dirt particles swirling therein and hence render the cyclone capable of depositing fine particles of small diameter. Such tapered cyclone units with the means to maintain the velocity of the fine dirt particles will hereinafter be referred to as 'high efficiency' cyclones, efficiency being used in relation to the ability to deposit fine dust particles."
In those passages the specification points out that the prior art Dyson I proposal was to use two frusto-conical shaped cyclones to separate the dirt from the air. As the specification points out, that avoids the need for the use of filters as the main cleaning elements.
The specification then goes on to acknowledge US Patent No. 3425192 (Davis). The specification states that Davis also "discloses a cleaning appliance wherein dirty air passes through cyclone units in series the units being of progressively higher efficiency. All the cyclone units are, however of the tapered high efficiency form."
Davis shows a cleaning tank system of the sort that might stand outside a building. The air inlet is adapted to be connected to a suction hose leading from a cleaning tool. From the inlet, the air is fed into a bottom section consisting of a frusto-conical shaped separator for separating the heavier dirt particles. That separator discharges air into a second section containing a plurality of smaller cone separators which extract the smaller particles which are separately collected in a pan. The multiple separators of the second stage then discharge the air towards the third section which contains the suction fan preceded by a filter.
The specification comes next to the inventive step. It states:
"The invention recognises that a vacuum cleaner incorporating only the higher efficiency cyclones necessary to deal with the fine particles does not operate entirely satisfactorily under normal domestic conditions when dirt particles of larger size and other extraneous objects are sucked into the appliance. These larger size particles tend to be retained either performing the spiral or circular motion in the cyclone or drifting to the cyclone central regions and are not deposited. This causes noise and interferes with the efficient operation of the cyclone.
Accordingly the present invention proposes incorporating into the air passage upstream, relatively to the inlet for dirty air, of the high efficiency cyclone unit a cyclone deliberately constructed to be of lower efficiency by omitting the frusto-conical taper and constructing the cyclone casing of cylindrical form or with a reverse taper or flare away from the inlet.
This 'lower efficiency' cyclone, though not ultimately capable of dealing effectively with the finest particles i.e. particles of 50 microns diameter or under, carries out a primary cleaning action of the dirty air flow by depositing all but some of these finer particles. The high efficiency cyclone with the taper is then left to function in its optimum conditions with comparatively clean air and only particles of very small size."
The specification continues with a description of the specific embodiment which I have already described and ends with five claims. The four claims that were relied on by Dyson are in this form:
"1. A vacuum cleaning appliance including cyclone units of successively higher efficiency, in the capability of depositing fine dust, in series connection, the highest efficiency cyclone having a frusto-conical part (15) tapered away from its entry (18) and means for generating an air flow from a dirty air inlet sequentially through the cyclone units characterised in that a lower efficiency cyclone unit upstream of the highest efficiency unit has a body (13) without the taper away from the air entry, being either cylindrical or having a reverse taper.
2. A vacuum cleaning appliance according to claim 1 characterised by a casing (1) with a dirty air inlet, a generally cylindrical container (13) constituting the lower efficiency cyclone unit positioned within the casing and being connected to the dirty air inlet, the high efficiency cyclone being positioned within the lower efficiency cyclone unit.
…
4. A vacuum cleaning appliance according to any preceding claim capable of working in an upright mode on wheels (9) characterised by cleaning head (2) with rotatable brush (4) at the dirty air inlet, the means for generating the airflow being a motor-driven fan (3).
5. A vacuum cleaning appliance according to claim 4 characterised in that the motor of fan (3) also drives brush (4) through belt (5)."
Construction
In Wheatley v Drillsafe Ltd [2001] RPC 133, this Court explained the correct approach to construction. At page 141 I said:
"18. … Section 125 of that Act provides that an invention shall be that specified in the claim "as interpreted by the description and any drawings … shall be determined accordingly." The extent of protection is not only important when considering whether an alleged infringement falls within the claim, but also when considering validity. A patent will be invalid if the extent of protection includes within it the prior art or something which was obvious having regard to the prior art.
19. Section 125(3) requires the Protocol on Interpretation of Article 69 of the EPC to be applied. It states:
"Article 69 should not be interpreted in the sense that the extent of the protection conferred by a European Patent is to be understood as that defined by the strict, literal meaning of the wording used in the claims, the description and drawings being employed only for the purpose of resolving an ambiguity found in the claims. Neither should it be interpreted in the sense that the claims serve only as a guideline and that the actual protection conferred may extend to what,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CFPH LLC's Applications
...a question is posed. And technological invention cannot reliably be divorced from business context. 49 As Sedley LJ said in Dyson Appliances Ltd v. Hoover Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1440, "the perceived limits of technical practicability are a matter of mindset, and that mindset is characteristica......
-
First Currency Choice Pte Ltd v Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd and Another Appeal
...... level of skill will depend on the scope of the subject matter of the patent in question (see Dyson Appliances Ltd v Hoover Ltd [2001] RPC 26 (“ Dyson v Hoover ”) at [30]). The notional ......
-
Glaxo Group Ltd v Patents Act
...SPA v BDMO SA 2007 FSR 37 UNION CARBIDE CORP v BP CHEMICALS LTD 1998 RPC 1 DYSON APPLIANCES LTD v HOOVER LTD (NO 1) 2001 AER (D) 41 2002 RPC 22 RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD & ORS v WARNER-LAMBERT CO UNREP CLARKE 10.7.2007 2007/53/11270 2007 IEHC 256 BRITISH ORE CONCENTRATION SYNDICATE LTD v MIN......
-
Dyson Technology Ltd v Samsung Gwangju Electronics
...in cyclones as a result of their widespread use in domestic vacuum cleaners. This use was pioneered by Sir James Dyson (see Dyson Appliances Ltd v Hoover Ltd [2001] RPC 26 at [12]-[17] and [44]), although it turns out that one of the items of prior art in the present case (Sanyo, which was ......
-
Management and Enforcement
...Upper Canada, 1990) 1 at 37–39. 335 Dyson Appliances Ltd. v. Hoover Ltd. , [2001] R.P.C. 27, [2001] EWHC Patents 30, aff’d on liability [2002] R.P.C. 22, [2001] EWCA Civ 1440 (one year’s headstart enjoined) [ Dyson ]; compare Monsanto Co. v. Stauffer Chemicals , [1987] F.S.R. 57 at 62 (S. A......